Turner v. United States
396 U.S. 398 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statutory inference permitting a jury to infer an element of a crime (e.g., illegal importation, knowledge) from the fact of possession is constitutionally valid under the Due Process Clause only if it can be said with substantial assurance that the inferred fact is more likely than not to flow from the proven fact of possession.
Facts:
- On June 1, 1967, federal agents arrested Silas Turner and two companions in Weehawken, New Jersey, after their car exited the Lincoln Tunnel.
- During the arrest, agents saw Turner throw a foil package onto a wall.
- This package was retrieved and found to contain 14.68 grams of a cocaine and sugar mixture, without any federal tax stamps.
- Agents then searched the car and discovered a tinfoil package under the front seat.
- This second package contained 48.25 grams of heroin, packaged in 275 small glassine bags, also without federal tax stamps.
Procedural Posture:
- Silas Turner was indicted on four counts of federal narcotics violations in a federal trial court.
- The trial judge instructed the jury that under federal law, they could infer guilt from Turner's unexplained possession of the narcotics.
- A jury found Turner guilty on all four counts.
- Turner appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, arguing the jury instructions were unconstitutional.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to reconsider the permissibility of the statutory inferences.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do the federal statutory provisions that permit a jury to infer from a defendant's unexplained possession of heroin and cocaine (1) that the drugs were illegally imported with the defendant's knowledge, and (2) that the drugs were purchased not in or from a stamped package, violate the Due Process Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice White
No, as to heroin; Yes, as to cocaine. The constitutional validity of a statutory inference depends on the rational connection between the proven fact and the presumed fact, which varies by substance. For heroin, overwhelming evidence shows it is not produced in the United States, so it is 'more likely than not' that possessed heroin was illegally imported. A person trafficking in heroin would also be aware of its foreign origin. Therefore, the § 174 inference is valid for heroin. Similarly, the possession of 275 bags of heroin is direct evidence of distribution, and it is highly probable the heroin was purchased, making the § 4704(a) inference valid. For cocaine, however, substantial quantities are legally produced in the U.S. and significant amounts are stolen from legal channels. Therefore, it cannot be said with substantial assurance that possessed cocaine was illegally imported, rendering the § 174 and § 4704(a) inferences for cocaine unconstitutional because the rational connection is too weak.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Black
Yes, as to both heroin and cocaine. The statutory presumptions are unconstitutional because they relieve the government of its burden to prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, thereby violating the Due Process Clause. These inferences undermine the presumption of innocence and coerce the defendant to testify in violation of the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination. The Court engages in improper judicial fact-finding by relying on evidence outside the trial record to justify the presumptions, a role that constitutionally belongs to the jury.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Marshall
No, as to heroin; Yes, as to cocaine, but with different reasoning for one of the heroin counts. I agree with the Court's judgment to affirm the heroin convictions and reverse the cocaine convictions. However, the conviction on Count 2 (§ 4704(a) for heroin) should be affirmed only because the possession of 275 glassine bags is direct proof of distribution. I disagree with the majority's alternative reasoning that possession allows a valid inference of illegal 'purchase,' as that is purely speculative; the defendant could have acquired the drugs by other means, such as theft.
Analysis:
This case refines the 'rational connection' test for statutory presumptions established in cases like Leary v. United States. It clarifies that the constitutionality of such an inference is not a abstract question but a fact-specific inquiry that depends on the particular substance involved. By upholding the presumption for heroin but striking it down for cocaine, the Court mandated that there must be a strong, empirically supported link between the proven fact (possession) and the inferred fact (e.g., importation). This decision requires courts to analyze real-world data about a drug's origin and distribution channels before allowing a statutory shortcut to substitute for prosecutorial proof.
Unlock the full brief for Turner v. United States